Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
RFC 1812 - 5.3.1 Time to Live (TTL)

Top: Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
Up: Requests For Comments
Up: RFC 1812
Up: 5. INTERNET LAYER - FORWARDING
Up: 5.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
Prev: 5.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
Next: 5.3.2 Type of Service (TOS)

### 5.3.1 Time to Live (TTL)

The Time-to-Live (TTL) field of the IP header is defined to be a timer limiting the lifetime of a datagram. It is an 8-bit field and the units are seconds. Each router (or other module) that handles a packet MUST decrement the TTL by at least one, even if the elapsed time was much less than a second. Since this is very often the case, the TTL is effectively a hop count limit on how far a datagram can propagate through the Internet.

When a router forwards a packet, it MUST reduce the TTL by at least one. If it holds a packet for more than one second, it MAY decrement the TTL by one for each second.

If the TTL is reduced to zero (or less), the packet MUST be discarded, and if the destination is not a multicast address the router MUST send an ICMP Time Exceeded message, Code 0 (TTL Exceeded in Transit) message to the source. Note that a router MUST NOT discard an IP unicast or broadcast packet with a non-zero TTL merely because it can predict that another router on the path to the packet's final destination will decrement the TTL to zero. However, a router MAY do so for IP multicasts, in order to more efficiently implement IP multicast's expanding ring search algorithm (see [INTERNET:4]).

DISCUSSION

  The IP TTL is used, somewhat schizophrenically, as both a hop count limit and a time limit. Its hop count function is critical to ensuring that routing problems can't melt down the network by causing packets to loop infinitely in the network. The time limit function is used by transport protocols such as TCP to ensure reliable data transfer. Many current implementations treat TTL as a pure hop count, and in parts of the Internet community there is a strong sentiment that the time limit function should instead be performed by the transport protocols that need it.

  In this specification, we have reluctantly decided to follow the strong belief among the router vendors that the time limit function should be optional. They argued that implementation of the time limit function is difficult enough that it is currently not generally done. They further pointed to the lack of documented cases where this shortcut has caused TCP to corrupt data (of course, we would expect the problems created to be rare and difficult to reproduce, so the lack of documented cases provides little reassurance that there haven't been a number of undocumented cases). IP multicast notions such as the expanding ring search may not work as expected unless the TTL is treated as a pure hop count. The same thing is somewhat true of traceroute.

  ICMP Time Exceeded messages are required because the traceroute diagnostic tool depends on them.

  Thus, the tradeoff is between severely crippling, if not eliminating, two very useful tools and avoiding a very rare and transient data transport problem that may not occur at all. We have chosen to preserve the tools.

Next: 5.3.2 Type of Service (TOS)

Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
RFC 1812 - 5.3.1 Time to Live (TTL)